Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:13:44.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What can we Learn from Buridan's Ass?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Ruth Weintraub
Ruth Weintraub*
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University, Philosophy Department, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The mythical hungry ass, facing two identical bundles of hay equidistant from him, has engendered two related questions. Can he choose one of the bundles, there seemingly being nothing to incline him one way or the other? If he can, the second puzzle — pertaining to rational choice — arises. It seems the ass cannot rationally choose one of the bundles, because there is no sufficient reason for any choice.

In what follows, I will argue that choice is possible even when there is no option which is better than the others (section II), and that it is perfectly reasonable to choose an option even when there is no sufficient reason for it (section III). I will then (section IV) point to another puzzling feature of the ass's tale, a seeming difference between it and its theoretical analogue, and consider some suggestions as to how the asymmetry is to be explained (section V).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue 3-4 , December 2012 , pp. 281 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bratman, M. 1981. ‘Intention and Means-End Reasoning. Philosophical Review 90: 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. 2002. Making Comparisons Count. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R.G. 1960. The Idea of Nature, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Finetti, B. 1937. ‘Foresight: its Logical Laws, its Subjective Sources.’ in Studies in Subjective Probability. Kyburg, H.E. and Smokler, H.E. eds. New York: John Wiley 1964.Google Scholar
Doore, G.L. 1983. ‘William James and the Ethics of Belief.’ Philosophy 58: 353–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, R. 1987. The Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, H. 2004. ‘Disengaging Reason.’ In Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Wallace, R.J. Pettit, P. Scheffler, S. and Smith, M. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1965. Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1999. ‘Pragmatism and Reasons for Belief,’ reprinted in his Reasoning, Meaning, and Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, J. 1983. ‘Believing What One Ought.’ Journal of Philosophy 80: 752–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieronymi, P. 2009. ‘The Will as Reason.’ Philosophical Perspectives 23: 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huss, B. 2009. ‘Three Challenges (and Three Replies) to the Ethics of Belief.’ Synthese 168: 249–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. 1897. ‘The Will to Believe.’ in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover 1956.Google Scholar
Kaplan, M. 1996. Decision Theory as Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauber, P. and Hare, P.H.. 1974. ‘The Right and Duty to Will to Believe.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 4: 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. 2003. ‘Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality; a Critique.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66: 612–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. 2010. ‘Perer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.’ In Disagreement. Feldman, R. and Warfield, T.A. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kyburg, H.E. 1961. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1710. Theodicy. Translated by Huggard, E.M. and edited by Farrer, A.. La Salle, IL: Open Court 1985.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G.W. 1765. New Essays on Human Understanding. Translated and edited by Remnant, Peter and Bennett, Jonathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1981.Google Scholar
Maher, P. 1993. Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manor, R. 1997. ‘To Eat or not to Eat? Buridan's Ass and Indeterminacy.’ Proceedings of the 20thInternational Wittgenstein Symposium on the Role of Pragmatics in Contemporary Philosophy. Schurz, G. and Dorn, G. eds. 604–7.Google Scholar
McAdam, J.I. 1965. ‘Choosing Flippantly or Non-Rational Choice.’ Analysis 25: 132–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meiland, J. 1980. ‘What Ought we to Believe?’ American Philosophical Quarterly 17: 15–24.Google Scholar
Owens, D. 2003. ‘Does Belief Have an Aim?’ Philosophical Studies 115: 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. 1999. ‘When we are Ourselves: the Active and the Passive.’ In Engaging Reason: on the Theory of Value and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, T. 1785. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. in The Works of Thomas Reid, Hamilton, Sir William ed., 5thedition. Edinburgh: McClachlan and Stewart 1846.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 2005. ‘Choice Without Preference: The Problem of ‘‘Buridan's Ass.’’’ In Rescher, N. Scholastic Meditations, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. and Shiffrin, R.M.. 1977. ‘Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending and a General Theory.’ Psychological Review 84: 127–90.Google Scholar
Shah, N. and Velleman, D.. 2005. ‘Doxastic Deliberation.’ Philosophical Review 114: 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.F.M. 1986. ‘Why Isn't everyone a Bayesian? Comment.’ American Statistician 40: 10.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. 1677. Ethics, in Spinoza: Selections. Wild, J. ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Strickland, L. 2006. ‘God's Problem of Multiple Choice.’ Religious Studies 42: 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. 1966. ‘A Bayesian Approach to the Paradoxes of the Ravens.’ In Aspects of Inductive Logic, Hintikka, J. and Suppes, P. eds. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. and Morgenbesser, S.. 1977. ‘Picking and Choosing.’ Social Research 44: 757–85.Google Scholar
Weintraub, R. 2001. ‘A Bayesian Paradox.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52: 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. ‘Epistemic Permissiveness.’ Philosophical Perspectives 19: 445–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar